Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Richland
Criminal appeal from the Mansfield Municipal Court of Common
Pleas, Case Nos. 2018TRC04641 and 19TRC00293
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; vacated in part and
Plaintiff-Appellee JOSEPH R. REED Assistant Law Director City
Defendant-Appellant JOHN C. O'DONNELL
JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J., Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.,
Hon. Earle E. Wise, J.
Defendant-appellant Daniel Meadows ["Meadows"]
appeals his conviction and sentence after a jury trial in the
Mansfield Municipal Court, Richland County, Ohio.
and Procedural History
On May 13, 2018, Trooper Robert Warner of the Ohio State
Patrol initiated a stop of a vehicle for driving left of
center. Meadows was driving the vehicle. As Trooper Warner
approached and spoke with Meadows, the trooper noticed an
odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle. Upon further
questioning, Meadows admitted to having drunk one beer that
Trooper Warner requested Meadows perform the Walk and Turn,
One Leg Stand, and Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus tests. Based on
Meadows's performance on these tests, Trooper Warner
determined that Meadows was under the influence and placed
him under arrest for Operating a Vehicle under the Influence.
Meadows subsequently refused to submit to a breath test after
Trooper Warner had read him the BMV 2255 form. Meadows was
charged for OVI "under the influence" in violation
of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) in case number 18 TRC
On January 11, 2019, the state filed a second charge in Case
Number 19 TRC 293 under R C 4511.19(A) (2), which provides
that when Defendant has a prior conviction in twenty years
and it is a refusal, then the minimum sentence is six days.
In that case, it was alleged that Meadows had a prior OVI in
Meadows filed a Motion to Dismiss in case number 19 TRC 293
on Speedy Trial grounds. A hearing was held on January 29,
2019 prior to the Trial. The trial court overruled the Motion
Trial proceeded and a jury found Meadows guilty on both
charges. The trial court sentenced Meadows on both
"I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT' S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO ORC
"II. DEFENDANT/APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR A
VIOLATION OF ORC §4511.19(A)(1) WAS TAINTED BY THE
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR CONVICTION.
"III. THE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR BY IMPOSING
"IV. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN VIOLATION OF THE
SIXTH AMENDMENT FOR FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE TRIAL
COURT'S SENTENCING ON THE ALLIED OFFENSES OF SIMILAR
In his First Assignment of Error, Meadows contends that the
OVI in Case number 19 TRC 293 is the same OVI charged in Case
Number 18 TRC 4641. Meadows notes that the only difference
between the two cases is that in Case Number 19 TRC 293 the
state alleged a prior conviction within 20 years. Therefore,
Meadows argues the state was required to bring him to trial
within 90-days of his arrest. Because he was not brought to
trial within that period of time, Meadows contends the trial
court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss Case Number
19 TRC 293.
OF APPELLATE REVIEW.
Speedy trial provisions are mandatory and are encompassed
within the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The availability of a speedy trial to a person accused of a
crime is a fundamental right made obligatory on the states
through the Fourteenth Amendment. State v. Ladd, 56
Ohio St.2d 197, 200, 383 N.E.2d 579 (1978). "The
statutory speedy trial provisions, R.C. 2945.71 et seq.,
constitute a rational effort to enforce the constitutional
right to a public speedy trial of an accused charged with the
commission of a felony or a misdemeanor and shall be strictly
enforced by the courts of this state." State v.
Pachay 64 Ohio St.2d 218, 416 N.E.2d 589 (1980),
Our review of a trial court's decision regarding a motion
to dismiss based upon a violation of the speedy trial
provisions involves a mixed question of law and fact.
State v. Larkin, 5th Dist. No.2004-CA-103,
2005-Ohio-3122, 2005 WL 1463255, ¶11. As an appellate
court, we must accept as true any facts found by the trial
court and supported by competent, credible evidence.
State v. Taylor, 5th Dist. Richland No. 16 CA 17,
2016-Ohio-5912, 2016 WL 5118653, ¶ 43, citing
Larkin, supra. With regard to the legal issues, however,
we apply a de novo standard of review and thus freely review
the trial court's application of the law to the facts.
When reviewing the legal issues presented in a speedy-trial
claim, we must strictly construe the relevant statutes
against the state. Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio
St.3d 53, 57, 661 N.E.2d 706, 709 (1996); State v.
Colon, 5th Dist. Stark No. 09-CA-232, 2010-Ohio-2326,
2010 WL 2060900, ¶ 12.
the trial court permissibly extended the trial date beyond
the R. C. 2945.71 time prescriptions.
A person charged with a first degree misdemeanor shall be
brought to trial within ninety days after the person's
arrest or ...